The group Right Sized Newton has reportedly submitted signatures to the Newton City Clerk asking the city council to reverse its 17-7 approval of the zoning for Northland project. Two sources say they submitted in excess of the 3,032 needed signatures.
The signatures have not yet been certified so it’s too soon to say if this effort has been successful.
If certified and the council denies Right Size’s request, the question would be placed before voters (as Mayor Fuller explained here).
UPDATED: This just in from City Clerk David Olson:
The petitions were delivered around 10:30 am today. 587 sheets were delivered and the petitioners believe they have 4000+ signatures. They also noted that they will be dropping off more sheets on Monday. We have started the certification of the signatures. Depending on how many more they bring on Monday, I don’t expect to have the certification done until the week of New Year’s.
Well, it looks like time is up for the City (the Mayor) to take up my reiterated suggestion that the parties convene.
I’d ask Greg, how does it feel not only to lose the Northland Project as currently permitted, but his beloved “shuttle system”?
This referendum reflects much frustration throughout the city
regarding out of scale development. RuthAnne wrote about
her reasons to support Northland. However she outlined only a
onesided version of the project. This is not good leadership.
So many negative consequences may emerge from this misplaced
endeavor. The city council failed to consider many unintended
consequences. Thank goodness educated homeowners rallied
to protect their community and standard of living. Hopefully a
much improved development can eventually be built.
Let’s be VERY clear, it’s not one party that loses here it’s the city. Even if this wins, which I believe it will, we still lose. We lose because we continue to prove that we are the city of No. We lose because we continue in our selfish ways to “protect” our little plot of land that happens to be among the most accessible in the jobs in nearby Boston. We lose because we continually find ways to make our own financial crisis worse. We lose because developers will continue to see reasons not to do business here and will take their best and most revenue-generating projects elsewhere. We lose because businesses want to ensure that their employees have a shorter commute and we cannot offer work proximity to different types and different prices of home. We lose because we continue to cling to an outdated, unsustainable car-centric way of thinking.
Congratulations to the NIMBY crowd on a great petition drive.
I am pro-development but completely understand the traffic concerns expressed by opponents of the project. Any sort of solutions that involves “shuttles” or things of similar nature, doesn’t make sense to me. Those ‘solutions’ tend to last for a few months post-development then quietly disappear as the budget changes and naysayers are silenced.
Newton has a traffic crisis, far worse than I have ever seen while living here. We simply can’t handle more cars. Accidents, dangerous road conditions, inaccessibility for pedestrians etc. 800 more units will add to it, whether we like to flirt around the issue or not. And sorry, I don’t buy the argument that people who live further away will simply commute through Newton; like someone would voluntarily commute down Needham street!?
Message to the Nimbys: Make the narrative about traffic congestion, and you will win. Focus on dev, and you will lose.
I don’t share the angst and hand-wringing prevalent among a number of my pro-development friends over the prospect of this question going to the voters. In fact I think it’s high time for the pro v anti development split in Newton to be quantified so we’ll know whether development in this city will proceed — and make no mistake, it will proceed — through the municipal process or the 40B process. Most voters will choose some municipal control rather than 40B. Most voters will see through the NIMBY opposition and view this as an opportunity to modernize Newton. So in short, I say bring it on!
@ Tanowitz
THANKS ! ,.. for the generous and heartfelt congratulations.
So many losses are a great win for the taxpaying citizenry of the city, who, in signing this petition, are indicating a wish to protect the environment they have come to expect living here.
I don’t support the petitioner’s objective. I believe that Northland followed the rules and their rights as private property owners should be respected. But if city “leaders” had taken my oft repeated advice and required the developer to provide 15K square feet of onsite educational space, I don’t believe the petitioners would have received enough signatures to put this project in jeopardy. Even if they managed to gather the signatures, onsite educational space would have given the project a natural constituency to defeat a ballot challenge.
I’m not convinced that a referendum intending to overturn a super majority vote of our legislature will win – or at least win on the merits of issue.
If it does, it’s because the head people at right size have fed a lot of residents a load of malarkey about what will happen if they stop this “government overreach.” They will have convinced enough voters that the big bad boogey men developers have once again tried to put one over on Newton and must be stopped.
I was pondering the Northland proposal today wondering why it’s caused such an upheaval and I became fascinated that the only developers who are willing to go through Newton’s overwhelming and expensive special permit process are Newtonites themselves.
We need to get more involved in changing the special permit process so that the permitting authority is not composed of elected councilors but instead is a more cut and dried objective process. U
@Marti Bowen “We need to get more involved in changing the special permit process so that the permitting authority is not composed of elected councilors but instead is a more cut and dried objective process.”
I disagree with that for a couple of reason:
1) I’ve walked the Land Use Committee repeated urge the Planning and Zonng Department members who attend those meetings to provide more guidance and it is seldom forthcoming. As best I can tell they (Planning and Zoning Dept) seem to make it up as they go and turn themselves into pretzels trying to accommodate the developer and paying no mind to the neighbors
2) There was/is a proposition on the table to have an appointed board decide the bulk of the special permit requests. I am NOT comfortable having a board, appointed by the mayor make these decision. I like that I can appeal to elected Councilors
3) There is no cut and dry process and cut an dry criteria
@Marti: Isn’t that what it’s like in Boston and my good friend, Boston City Councilor Michelle Wu would like to disband?
https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2019/10/07/michelle-wu-abolish-bpda/
Since it appears that goodwill existed as well as lawful avenue for continuing project negotiation, Mayor Fuller could have, but didn’t, convene Right Size, developer and the city in the window between City Council vote and the Referendum’s signature submission. That, contrary to the wisdom of Robert Frost:
“I took the road less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.”
@Jim: No one on either side has responded to your suggestion because no one likes your idea. Repeating it 200 more times won’t change anything. Sorry Charlie Brown you tried but neither team wants to play with you.
As I wrote earlier, just like it happened for opt-out Newton, what is going to happen now is that the councilors are going to throw in, with zero support from the residents, a conflicting and confusing question (like, do you want to reduce the Northland project by 0.1M square feet)? Then someone will throw in $300K+ to a political strategist who doesn’t live in Newton to win the election.
Greg,
I’m not suggesting my plan at this time. As I said it’s too late. And yes, you are correct at least when the plan would have worked, there were no takers among the leaders that counted.
So what are we left with? Years of further delay. No Northland. And, Greg, I’m sorry to say for your benefit, no shuttle buses running up and down Needham Street every 10 minutes. (And of course no splash park for the kids.)
Manu – A referendum (20-day signature collection) refers a passed measure back to the council or to the voters. The language on the ballot is an abbreviated form of the passed measure. An initiative petition is a request that the council pass a measure/ordinance that does not currently exist (Opt Out) so the language for the ballot does not yet exist and must be written from scratch, so to speak.
The distinction between, and an explanation of, a referendum and an initiative petition can be found in Article 1o of the city charter.
Amy Sangiolo said:
“@Marti: Isn’t that what it’s like in Boston and my good friend, Boston City Councilor Michelle Wu would like to disband
https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2019/10/07/michelle-wu-abolish-bpda/ ”
No, it isn’t at all. Boston’s BPDA, formerly the BRA, is a very unusual agency quasi-independent from the City of Boston. It has extensive and concentrated powers, including land taking, almost always reserved for municipalities.
Your good friend’s report on the proposal is most illuminating:
https://abolishthebpda.com/
It has some very good ideas that might apply in principal to Newton. In fact, one of its major recommendations is to overhaul Boston’s “antiquated” zoning ordinances (which are contemporary with Newton’s) to avoid special-casing every project.
However, as far as I can see the report makes no recommendation that special permits should be run by politicians.
I’m both glad and sad that the (seemingly) sufficient amount of signatures were submitted today.
Glad, because the 4,000 plus signatures contradict claims of some, that “Northland opposers are a very few number of vocal complainers “.
But sad in that I have always stood by Jim’s idea. We’re not talking global politics with the US, Russia and China. This is a developer and a neighborhood group! Why the Mayor didn’t invite both parties into her office prior to today, just boggles the mind. It was a golden opportunity to display leadership and the ability to unite. One she let slip by.
And lastly, PLEASE stop using the term NIMBY….from your comfortable 6, 7 if or 8 figure single family homes in Newton.
If you’re building an in-law apartment in your single family to rent to another family (at a discount), but instead turn around advocate that density be added to another’s neighborhood….guess what, you’re NIMBY.
Does anyone know if this can be turned around in time to make the Super Tuesday ballot? Seems like we’re running out of time.
Gail,
Don’t count on anybody in the City Administration (the Mayor/her office) doing anything — or savvy to do anything. They could have turned the whole thing around and avoid the Referendum altogether — the legal path for which having existed up until the time the signatures were officially submitted (as I’ve previously explained).
The interesting thing to me is, couldn’t the Mayor see this coming — a referendum coming after any City Council vote in favor of Northland??? And then once the process began for signatures, a referendum will ultimately overturn the City Council vote???
No planning. No savvy. No executive judgment. (That is, assuming everyone wanted the best project achievable, and as expeditiously as possible.)
I don’t think you can put this on the Mayor. The City Council spoke; should the Mayor be overriding their judgement immediately after a vote?
Right Size Newton also didn’t commit to any negotiation after the vote. In fact, they threatened the signature drove even before the vote took place. And I understand, they kind of had to, given the timing required.
My question is whether the referendum is now on autopilot, or could it be withdrawn if some change were to be negotiated? This might be an academic question: I don’t know if RSN wants to negotiate.
Mike,
I believe the referendum is now on autopilot as the signatures have been officially submitted to the City. To withdraw it now would breach agreement with all the numerous signatories. Which is why I repeatedly implored here on V14 (to Greg Reibman’s consternation) that the City forthwith intervene and convene with Right Size in the window between City Council vote and submission of signatures.
Regarding the Mayor and City Council, as executive, the Mayor had the authority to convene with Right Size and developer and on reaching some mutually agreeable modification send it back to City Council having the authority to vote on revision if it determined that the modification constituted a cardinal change to the special permit already passed. Now the referendum and its inevitable passage makes that approach moot.
It’s not a matter of the Mayor having overridden the judgment of City Council. Permittee developer can always propose changes for City Council approval if deemed necessary. In fact, I feel that once the referendum process actualized, the Mayor was remiss in not following up to see if all sides could come together — rather than face the interim bleak, protracted and unknown prospects the City (and residents) now face with the long sitting industrial and essentially un-utilized non-productive site.
I am a neighbor of the Northland site and submitted this statement to the City Council during the Land Use Committee hearings. I feel as if many neighbors, who want a development on the Northland site, were drowned out by noise that the RightSizers are making in our community. I amazed that Rightsizers feel they were not heard. To the contrary, they had many opportunities as I did. Please read my statement below:
Since 1989, I have lived within five minutes of the Northland site and traveled on Needham Street every day. For 15 years, I owned and operated a 50-person business on Oak Street, which borders the proposed development. Today, I ride my bike, walk or drive down Needham Street to my current workplace in Needham.
I am in favor of the proposed Northland development based on my more than 30 years of home ownership, business and travel.
My rationale: Everything is interconnected.
Here are some things to think about when evaluating a project like this:
City Finances –Newton needs more development to sustain City services. As responsible citizens of Newton, we should be concerned about how the next generation will support the escalating costs of vital public services including our outstanding school system. Taxing new development enables us to live within the constraints of Prop 2½ while not requiring regular operating overrides. What’s more, this proposal includes an extra mitigation payment designated just for Countryside School. That’s on top of any new tax revenue generated by the project.
Vitality – We have an opportunity to enhance the vitality and walkability of the Needham Street area and Newton Upper Falls consistent with the plan for the larger Newton-Needham Business District and the Needham Street Vision Plan. With vitality comes tax revenue. Look at The Street and Chestnut Hill Square on Route 9 as examples of new development increasing Newton’s tax revenue.
Environmental Opportunities – We have an opportunity to take a multi-pronged approach to fight the Climate Crisis including — build state-of-the-art energy-saving buildings, experiment with new modes of transportation, and provide additional green space and open-air waterways. The project takes a major step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing single-occupant car traffic with regular shuttle busses. There’s also an extra $5M mitigation payment designated just for studying transportation in the Upper Falls and Needham Street area.
Social Opportunities – We have an opportunity to add rental housing to attract a diverse group of new residents to the City in addition to affordable housing for our teachers and firefighters and others who work in Newton but cannot afford to live here.
Historic Preservation – We have an opportunity to preserve the landmark Saco-Pette Machine Shops building at the corner of Oak and Needham streets for future generations. While our architectural past is quickly disappearing in our City, Northland promises to reimagine and sustain this landmark building. I believe this responsible preservation practice will provide guidance for future growth. As Confucius said: “Study the past if you would like to define the future.”
Think about future generations. With public and City Council oversight, the Northland project balances commercial and residential in a way that optimizes on tax revenue while minimizing adverse impacts. Possible alternatives are pure commercial development with vast parking lots or a huge unregulated 40B affordable housing project with no height restrictions or economic benefit. Do we really want to miss this opportunity to make Newton a more attractive place to live for generations to come?
I urge all City Councilors to vote ‘yes’ for the special permits for the Northland development.
I would like to thank the City Council and the city planners for all their hard work on this project.
Thomas Friedman,
Too late now. The referendum is currently on autopilot which undoubtedly will overturn the City Council special permit.
Interesting that you say the following:
“I feel as if many neighbors, who desire development on the Northland site, were drowned out by noise that the RightSizers are making in our community. I am amazed that Rightsizers feel they were not heard. To the contrary, they had many opportunities as I did.”
Apparently, in the end, your neighbors who desired the Northland development were not, as you claim, “drowned out by the noise that the RightSizers are making.” Hence, issuance of the special permit for the current plan.
But regrettably for those favoring Northland, the Land Use Committee and City Council may have heard, but not listen to, Right Size. Had there been a convening with Right Size by the City along with developer — even more critically in the window between City Council vote and signature submission — netting very likely a modest project modification, there’d be no referendum and you and your neighbors favoring Northland would not now be facing, from your and those neighbors’ perspectives, the worst of all outcomes including years of protracted delay.
Local control needs to be taken away from land use decisions. Much of the traffic in the area of the development is coming from people who don’t live in Newton because there isn’t enough housing in Newton. But sure, let’s just push them further out because greed or something.
If Newton didn’t have so much single family zoning in the first place, we wouldn’t have the urgent need for large developments. Those who oppose change can do so from the luxury of owning a home, having easy access to Boston, and not worrying about future generations in our city because they have theirs already. Good for them, the NIMBYs win.
Mr Butch,
There are multitudes of housing developments (apartments, etc.) recently and currently being constructed in or nearer to downtown Boston. Why would anyone seeking easy access to Boston elect Northland apartments over those nearer and in Boston??? To take the creeping along Needham Street shuttle bus to the standing room only Riverside trolley???
Just look how fast Austin Street is filling up. LOL
(Austin Street — what a waste by the City of Newton of such a valuable parcel — NewCAL site anyone?)
@Jane Frantz:
thank you very much for explaining the difference between referendum and petition initiative! I would be curious to know why out-out didn’t use a referendum, say to oppose the councilors bad decision to put a conflicting question. How was that vote different from the vote on Northland?
According to the charter, a question needs to be put on the ballot after the required number of signatures were certified. The charter outlines several items that are not subject to a referendum or and initiative. One is any proceeding providing for the submission or referral of a matter to the voters at an election.
referendum “and/or” initiative…
Jim, I assume you’re being facetious. Are you seriously asking why someone would rather live in Newton than Boston proper? They do it because of the school system and because Newton is a safe town. They do it because of the same reasons you did. If you think Newton isn’t a desirable place to live then we’re operating in different dimensions.
Fact is, when you bring people closer to their jobs, they’ll drive less. Even if they still drive to work, the miles driven are lower.
Again, we are in the middle of a climate and housing crisis. There is no need to have a damn referendum on any project, they should all be built, and the “community” shouldn’t have nearly as much review power.
MrButch
Do you support abolishing historic districts so that increased density can be built there? They tend to have larger lot sizes and homes and generally the more affluent live in those neighborhoods
The only density i would support is one that is applied equally to all parts of Newton. I guess that would be abolishment of single housing zoning… zero exceptions
@Michael: I have been an advocate for zoning reform for the majority of my 20 years in office and I certainly support making reforms – we may just differ on what those reforms are. As for my good friend, Boston City Councilor, Michelle Wu’s report: https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/34c99fd7-2532-4c9a-94d7-3c2dd1009ba0/downloads/Artwork-Report-Online-October11.pdf?ver=1576176157099
“The BPDA gives concentrated control over development to the Mayor of Boston with little to no accountability, giving well connected developers outsized access to influence decision-making and incentivizing an unhealthy political interdependence. No other city in the United States allows a quasi-governmental agency to wield the immense powers that the BPDA possesses, nor removes so many crucial decisions from accountability to the community.
Originally, the BRA resembled a traditional redevelopment authority. But with a dramatic expansion of its powers in 1960, the Authority took on a more familiar form: a monolithic super-agency catering to the needs of powerful interests. The expansion was for a specific purpose: civic leaders sought to satisfy the Prudential Insurance Company’s demands for tax breaks in order to secure construction of what is now the Prudential Center on an unused rail yard.3 In a series of advisory opinions starting in 1955, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) rejected various schemes aimed at giving Prudential favorable tax treatment.4 Repeatedly, the SJC advised that these schemes would not pass constitutional muster. Meanwhile, Mayor John F. Collins and several members of Boston’s business elite courted New Haven redevelopment chief Ed Logue to lead the BRA.5 Logue saw the possibility of using federal urban renewal powers as a vehicle to secure the tax breaks for Prudential. His proposal led to two critical changes to Chapter 121A, the state’s redevelopment authority law. First, no longer did areas declared “blighted”—a prerequisite to using urban renewal powers—need to be replaced by projects with a “predominantly residential purpose,” but could be replaced by projects with a “commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational or governmental” purpose. This meant that commercial projects like the Prudential Center could be built using urban renewal powers. Even more importantly, the BRA absorbed the powers and assets of the City’s Planning Board. Unlike other redevelopment authorities across Massachusetts, whose urban renewal projects were subject to local approvals and state review,6 in Boston the BRA’s power to approve projects would be subject only to mayoral approval, with little state oversight.7 The SJC approved these changes.8 Five years after ruling that the Prudential Center project was private in character9—and therefore ineligible for the generous tax concessions available only to an Urban Renewal Corporation pursuing public projects— the court concluded that the potential benefits, such as the “elimination of grave doubts as to the future use of a great area,” were enough to consider it public.10 For the benefit of a single developer, the BRA gained the power to declare “blighted” any area it deemed “unduly costly to develop . . . soundly through the ordinary operations of private enterprise”11—and in its place, build whatever the market demanded, rather than housing for those displaced. Within the next year, with little public participation and no oversight,12 the BRA declared the Prudential Insurance project to have a public purpose and approved tax breaks that would have been unconstitutional if granted to an ordinary business corporation. In effect, the Legislature and City manipulated state statute and tax code, skirting both state and federal Constitutions to ensure that a private company would benefit from a favorable tax situation. Thus, the BRA began to exercise extraordinary powers to facilitate development. This move had lasting impacts. The Prudential Insurance saga marked the first instance of the BRA prioritizing one big-name project at the expense of coherent and democratic citywide planning; it would not be the last. The Authority’s board members, appointed by the Mayor and Governor and removed from City Council oversight, could approve projects in accordance with powerful developers’ goals within the city, rather than the people’s vision for their communities. This remains true today
By design, the creation of the BRA allowed the City to execute urban renewal on a larger and more destructive scale. The next neighborhood to face the wrecking ball was the West End. In the early 1950s, a tightknit community of 7,500 immigrants and low-income and working-class Bostonians called the West End home. In April 1958, the BRA sent eviction notices to all of these residents.18 Despite numerous contentious public meetings, protests, and allegations of backroom deals, the BRA moved ahead with its plans and destroyed the West End to make way for high-rise luxury buildings, a new highway, and commercial and government offices.19 By the end of the decade, only a dozen buildings remained in their original state, and the initial commitment to build enough new affordable housing so residents could return fell far short. In one area of the West End, 2,700 families were displaced to build five As a whole, the urban renewal program executed by the BRA has never been, and was never intended to be, a neighborhood program. —Former State Representative Mel King in his book, Chain of Change: Struggles for Black Community Development, 19811 “ ” Boston’s West End, home to 7,500 Bostonians, as it looked in the early 1950s. Charlestown and Bunker Hill are visible in the background.2 FIXING BOSTON’S BROKEN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS | 7 high-rise apartment complexes with just 477 new apartments in total. The scale of displacement and outrage became a national symbol of the overreach of urban renewal.
Leaving large-scale planning and development policy to a self-funded agency answerable only to the Mayor has allowed well-connected insiders to shape the future of Boston with little transparency or accountability. Neither the residents of Boston nor their elected legislators have direct oversight over development and planning decisions. Accordingly, the public must struggle to understand the deals the BPDA negotiates with developers, how those decisions are made, and whether the commitments made by private entities are upheld. The expediency that the BPDA offers well-connected developers looking to maximize short-term gains comes at the expense of a broader vision to benefit the city as a whole and future generations.
“ [T]he fact is that the BRA allows mayors to steer projects to developers who please them and away from those who do not. ” — Boston Magazine, May 2013”
@Jim, In all seriousness I fully and forcefully support abolishing historic districts as well as single family zoning town wide. Throw in parking minimums as well.
Mr Butch,
In all seriousness, I fully and forcefully support retaining historic districts as well as single family zoning as it now exists. And I bet the vast vast majority of CURRENT Newton residents feel the same way — despite their having elected a few City Council housing zealots who campaigned on paving over Newton for dense housing in order to combat global warming and/or climate change.
@Jim
Exactly my point about removing local control from land use decisions. When we allow for quasi-direct democracy through community groups and variance hearings, the people who show up are typically either close abutter or their local politicians.
Immediate and close abutters don’t feel the direct effects of a housing shortage, as they are for the most part housing-secure. Because of that, the arguments in favor of more density to solve the housing crisis and to reduce carbon emissions are out weighted by the short term impacts of new construction.
If we ever want to address these existential issues, we need to make decisions on a larger scale than that afforded to us by local review processes.
Historic districts are, on their surface, good for the town. However, they are often hijacked by the same people who oppose development for reasons I lay out above, and used as a proxy for anti-development.
Mr Butch,
So you appear to be saying that because of the “existential issues” we need to eliminate local land use decisions and transfer those to who exactly?
And you appear to be saying that the existential crises of housing and carbon emissions mean we need to squeeze in dense housing throughout Newton, to what extent exactly? If these threats are truly threats to our human existence (definition of existential), why not completely pave Newton for wall to wall developments to combat global warming — as part of your suggested “larger scale” decision making to save humankind.
Amy, your long quote shows in part why the BRA/BPDA isn’t anything like what would be possible in Newton or anywhere else in the state, or even the country. The BRA could and did take land on its own authority. It could/can dispose of property autonomously (like Jersey Street next to Fenway just a few years ago).
Those powers are simply not the same as allowing special permits to be adjudicated by a planning board. You focus narrowly on the Mayoral appointment and influence part, but that was only one small component of what made the BRA so transformative (in an expansive meaning of the term). The planning board isn’t going to blight out large sections of Newton, nor would it ever be given the power to do so.
In fact, my quick glance at surrounding cities and towns hasn’t turned up any other examples of a city council-like body acting on special permits. All the examples I could find delegate the authority to a planning or zoning board.
Does anyone have a comprehensive list of what different communities do?
Jim, your use of quotes around the term existential crisis implies you don’t believe climate change to be an existential crisis. If that’s the case, we again seem to be living in two different realities.
If you think climate change isn’t an existential threat to all of us, then I don’t think you’ll subscribe to the need for increased density, which is largely agreed to be a necessary step in reducing our carbon footprint. On the state level, we are not producing enough homes. On the regional level, Newton is close to Boston, has multiple transit lines, and is largely single family zoned, especially around those transit lines. The lack of density in Newton means more people are pushed to farther-out suburbs, where they have to drive longer distances to work – often through our streets anyways.
That is a problem for the region, and our local land controls mean we don’t have individual incentives to change zoning, even if it would benefit the entire region. There is no body yet established to handle regional planning, but there is a clear need to hand off these decisions to someone other than the most local of local levels.
@Butch: Can you clarify what you mean by “There is no body yet established to handle regional planning”? I’m sure you’re not suggesting that a body of people who do not live in Newton should have control over zoning in Newton, or are you?
Mr Butch,
My use of quotes merely was to show that the word or phrase was a quote from, words taken from, your comment.
I think you are confusing use of the this with the grammatical use of the semi-quote.
@Independent, I’m saying that local control over development almost always leads to worse results for the region as a whole through lower density.
The people of Newton have abdicated their responsibility to build more dense multifamily housing along our transit corridors, so yes, I believe the power for hyper-local land use controls should be, to some degree at least, taken away.
If you’ll indulge me,
I believe the best comparison to the problem with local land use controls is our relationship with cars and car subsidies. Our current incentive structure makes it easy and relatively inexpensive to drive a large SUV – the gas tax does not adequately cover our vehicular infrastructure and hasn’t gone up since the 90’s, gas itself if subsidized at a national level, and public parking is heavily subsidized. This bundle of subsidies leads to more people owning large SUVs than necessary, and using large SUVs (or really any car) for more trips than necessary. This is also partly a result of our built environment which prioritizes the car over the pedestrian/biker/public transit commuter. Individuals make the choice to drive because they do not fully internalize the costs of doing so. In order to decrease large-SUV use, we need to make the individual bear the cost of their actions. This means we need to stop subsidizing gas, stop subsidizing parking costs, and tax people on their carbon footprints/credit reductions in carbon footprints. (I say large SUV but really we could expand this to any car. It just so happens that large SUVs are particularly illustrative of the problem.)
Everything aside, Newton residents are more inclined to make choices that benefit themselves at the expense of others. When we don’t allow new dense housing in Newton, we may benefit on a local level in the form of increased property values due to scarcity, decreased height (a nebulous benefit but so be it), or other perceived benefits. More than anything, we may feel we benefit from keeping things the same. Therein lies the problem, our current single-family low density car dependent lifestyle is completely unsustainable. Single family homes have larger carbon footprints than multifamily homes, cars have larger footprints than bikes/buses/trains, and low density means more people are pushed further away, further increasing the use of cars to travel longer distances. These are all regional (and national/worldwide) problems, but we have no incentive to address them on a local level because we aren’t bearing the full cost of our current lifestyles, and therefore have no reason to change. The people who attend community meetings tend to be wealthier and older, and they have even less incentive than the Newton population as a whole to advocate for change when the benefits are long term and regional.
This is a long way of saying yes, I do believe we should remove hyper local land use controls from the small group of wealthier homeowners who have the free time to go to multiple meetings (community meetings largely exclude those who work a second job or can’t afford daycare during the night meetings), because those people aren’t necessarily advocating for the optimal outcomes.
@Jim,
Fair enough, grammar isn’t my strongest suit.
That aside, do you believe building denser housing can reduce per-household carbon footprints? If so, I hope you’ll join me in advocating for more dense housing everywhere, especially in our own city.
@Butch: while I commend you for advocating for the greater good, I’m afraid what you are proposing would be a hard sell even for those who aren’t in the “small group of wealthier homeowners who have the free time to go to multiple meetings”. Not all people in Newton are rich and greedy. Some of us grew up in the poorest cities in the state, worked hard to get out of there and saved for years to be able to purchase a home in Newton. While I support building housing in Newton, I would not support zoning that will significantly decrease my property value. Do you argue that I should? And for that reason, in no way would I support a body that had the power to control zoning in Newton that was not accountable to the citizens of Newton.
@Independent,
I agree that this would not be politically feasible, at least not on a local level. I would argue that, yes, for the greater good, we should promote policies that wean us off our car dependent lifestyles and decrease CO2 footprints. There is no evidence to suggest that upzoning decreases property values. Typically it is to the contrary, as a single family home will be worth more since it can be converted to a 2+ family home. What will most likely happen is that property values either stay as they are or go up, while property tax rates decrease as larger developments come in and provide new tax revenue.
What may happen, however, is that rents in existing housing stock will fall. Property values and rents are high in large part because of our severe, and self-imposed (through zoning) housing scarcity. Those who own homes are profiting off of the artificial housing shortage. I simply propose we remove/relax the zoning which put us here in the first place. Since there is no will to do so, we need an outside body to come in and do it for us.
@Butch: you wrote “Since there is no will to do so, we need an outside body to come in and do it for us.” Who is the “we” and “us”? If you agree there is no way the citizens of Newton would allow this who is the “us”? Are you saying residents of Newton should be dictated to by outside groups on what should be built in Newton?
@Independent,
Sorry, should have been clearer. I am using “”We” and “Us” to mean the residents of Newton. I assume everyone on this forum is a Newton resident, or at least a business owner with a stake in our city.
While there are certainly those in Newton who advocate for the kind of dense multifamily housing we need, the public process for granting variances is generally skewed towards those who show up, and those people are, statistically speaking, white males who own homes. Good article on it here: https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/09/nimbys-dominate-local-zoning-meetings/569440/
It is well established that the Greater Boston Area needs to build significantly more multifamily transit-oriented housing in order to solve the transportation and housing crises – as well as the larger climate crisis. Since badly needed projects can be held up by a small vocal group of NIMBYs, a different system should be implemented to allow dense, multifamily housing to be built by-right in transit oriented locations.
Right now, the majority of land in Newton is severely underutilized, especially at transit nodes. Since the city (including both politicians and residents) has demonstrated ineptitude in better allocating and regulating land, the power to allocate and regulate land should be taken from those who currently wield it and given to a governing body with a longer-term view. Whatever body ends up controlling land use, it should be apolitical, as opposed to the elected and self-elected members of the community group/city counsel structure we have today. If increased density is unpopular, too bad, it is necessary for our region and our planet, and should be implemented throughout the region.
MrButch
I think it would be fair to ask you to ‘quantify’ your proposals. Assuming you had a magic wand and could approve whatever you want. What is your predictions for the following in 10 years
Assuming the economy is stable from today:
– average price of a 2000 sqft home in Newton
– average price of a 1400 sqft 2BR condo in Newton
– average rent for 2BR in Newton
– how many new units of housing built in Newton. Can use a percentage
– are your affordability rents available only to a ‘token selected’ few or available for ANY person?
– even if your get everything on your wishlist in Massachusetts , what % decrease in WORLDWIDE carbon footprint will this result in
Bugek,
A lot of what you ask for either requires a large research team or a crystal ball, neither of which I have at my disposal.
What I can answer with certainty is that a 1400sf condo will always be cheaper than a 2000sf single family. I can answer with certainty that, all else given, a rental unit in a market with extremely low vacancy (aka low supply) will be more expensive than a rental unit in a market with a healthy vacancy rate. So if we care at all about affordability, we need to permit more housing.
I don’t know how many units of housing specifically should be built in Newton, but if you look at the density in transit sites in units/acre, we are severely underbuilt in comparison with other communities with light rail and heavy rail stops. No Green Line stops in Newton have more than 4.2 units per acre, when research shows 10 per acre is a healthy minimum. https://mhpcenterforhousingdata.shinyapps.io/todex/
I never touched on affordable units (meaning inclusionary development units) but, since you asked, IDP is generally a mechanism for socioeconomic integration, not overall housing affordability. The root cause of high home prices is scarcity, and the best way to reduce scarcity is to build more housing units. Of course, as is the case today, there would be a lottery process for new IDP units built.
I don’t know how many tons of CO2 will be eliminated worldwide by upzoning, but the Department of Energy found “Households living in apartment buildings with five or more units use about half as much energy as other types of homes.”https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=11731.